Introduction: After the Law of Unity - which was drawn up by theologians from Alexandria and Antioch - a disagreement arose over some of the expressions contained in it, because there were some of the hard-line Alexandrians who rejected the Antiochian terminology, especially the term “two natures”, which among them (the Alexandrians) was equivalent to the word “two hypostases” (two persons). . They preferred over it other expressions that were mentioned by Cyril, such as the phrase “one nature” in his famous saying: “One nature for God, the incarnate Word.” However, out of respect for Cyril, they did not express their opinions publicly before his death (+444). The most prominent advocate of “one nature” was Eutyches, the head of a monastery in Constantinople that included more than 300 monks, supported by Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria.

Eutyches: (387-455) The teachings of Cyril of Alexandria became popular in monastic circles, and we claim that these circles occurred after the death of Saint Dalmatus (440), the monk Eutyches and Eutyches. Eutykha was a respected, devout, ascetic monk, and all the monks of the capital advanced and became prominent. The emperor revered him, and the eunuch Chrysavius, his baptismal son, respected him and consulted him on all religious administrative problems.

Eutyches paid attention to the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius. He hated Nestorius and he said what Cyril said. However, he fell into the trap set by Apollinarius, as he was reading the false teachings of Apollinarius - which were used by Cyril - and considered them to be one of the first fathers. Eutyches believed in the existence of two natures for Christ before the incarnation (he may have subscribed to Origen of Alexandria in the theory of the eternal existence of souls), but he only recognized one nature after the incarnation, believing that the divinity had absorbed the humanity, which was dissolved in the divinity, just as a drop of honey dissolves when it falls into an ocean of water. . He said that the human nature in Christ was mixed with the divine nature until it vanished in it “like a drop of wine falling into a sea of water.” Christ and this state are one hypostasis and one nature. These teachings became widespread in Constantinople and outside it, due to the friendship ties that linked Eutyches with Cyril's friends and followers, and due to Eutyches' skill in making plans and plotting. He courted Uranius, the bishop of Himeria in the Edessa region, to fight the famous bishop, Ebba. He fell in love with the hermit Barsoum, so that he would rebel against Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, in Syria and in the capital.

Domnus, Bishop of Antioch: (441-449) is Domnus II. He was born in Antioch and grew up there. He learned from its teachers and then devoted himself to prayer and meditation in the vicinity of Saint Efthymios the Great on the coast of Jericho. He was able to take refuge in the monastery of Evpribius, where his uncle John, Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius also accepted the vow. But he preferred to purify Efthymios and the wastelands of Jericho. He came upon this saint in the year 428 and accepted the vow at his hand. Then he was astonished by his uncle’s attitude toward Cyril in the year 431, so he wanted to return to Antioch to convince his uncle of the necessity of supporting the right faith as his teacher and guide saw it. Efthymios forbade him from doing so, explaining that if he returned to Antioch, he would benefit nothing, and that he would remain there and be appointed a bishop to succeed his uncle on the throne of the Apostles. But the hypocrites will lower him from his position. In fact, the great Saint Euthymius knew Domnos well, and he appreciated his purity, holiness, humility, and good intentions. But he sensed “simplicity” and weakness in his appreciation of men that did not qualify him for leadership and presidency.

Domnus and Utykha: Domnus was not satisfied with Eutyches’ teaching, and he did not fear Chrysaphius the eunuch or his master, the Emperor. He agreed with Theodoret's opinion and agreed to compile a book in which he responded to Eutyches. At the end of the year 447, Eranestes Theodoritus, meaning his book “The Beggar,” appeared. This book became popular in official and religious circles, and believers found in it a solid message proving that God does not change or suffer, and that the two natures existed together in Christ without mixing. Theodoret studded his paragraphs with excerpts from the words of the holy fathers. He did not target a specific person, but he left his readers no room for doubt that he was referring to Eutykha and “Al-Utykha.” At the beginning of the year 448, Domnus wrote to the emperor himself, drawing his attention to the departure of Eutyches and his heresy.

The Emperor defends Eutyches: The Emperor was not satisfied with this complaint, so he responded on February 16, 448, with an imperial decree prohibiting the works of Porphyrius and Nestorius and all works that did not agree with the texts of the decisions of Nicene and Ephesus and the “Cyril Clauses”! He also ordered the removal of Irenaeus, Bishop of Tire, from his position. By doing this, he assumed powers that Constantius had never had before. It is no secret that the priest Irenaeus was one of Nestorius's friends, and that he was exiled to Petra, then released after the death of Cyril, and that the bishops of coastal Phoenicia insisted that he be ordained bishop of Tyre, so Proclus himself agreed to this and fulfilled the obligations of ordaining Theodoretus bishop of Cyrus.

The news of this Sunni will spread, and the scorpions of Eutyches and Chrysavius spread among the people, and their agents engaged in false news to incite sedition. The mother of Antioch from Edessa, Bishop Aiba complained to his superior, Domnus. Domnus was confused about his matter, and postponed and delayed. The complainants filed their complaints with Constantinople and Alexandria, as well as with Domnus himself and Theodoritus. A new imperial decree was issued stipulating that Theodoret must remain within the borders of his diocese and limit his attention to his spiritual children. Dioscorus wrote a blatant letter to Domnos in which he pointed out Domnos’s delay in ordaining Irenaeus’ successor in Tyre, and his interest in and assistance to the enemies of Orthodoxy. Domnus protested against Dioscorus' interference in the affairs of others, but to no avail.

On the twenty-eighth of October of the year 448, a Sunni order was issued to Commander Damascus ordering that Ebba of Edessa, Daniel of Harran, and John of Rasina be transferred to Phoenicia to be tried before a spiritual body composed of Uranius, Bishop of Himeria, Photius, Bishop of Tire, and Ephestathius, Bishop of Beirut. The defendants appeared before the ruling body first in Tyre, then in Beirut. The two parties pleaded, and the ruling body advised peace and reconciliation. This was done in Beirut in the spring of 449.

Flabianos and Eutyches: On November 8, 448, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorla, raised the Eutyches case before the Council of Constantinople. Eusebius had seen a three-part volume entitled “The Beggar” (meaning Eutyches), compiled by Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus, and published it in the year 447, on the basis of which he considered the teachings of Eutyches to be unorthodox. Eusebius had alerted Eutyches to his error, but he did not listen. Flabianos, Bishop of Constantinople - who had reached the patriarchal office against the will of Chrysavius the eunuch, as he was opposed to his seating on the throne of Constantinople - was forced to order Archimandrite Eutyches to appear before the Holy Synod to answer the questions directed to him related to his teachings. He did not attend and did not comply until after the threat. On the twenty-second of November, Eutykha left his monastery, accompanied by a large number of monks and employees, and headed towards the bishopric. He appeared before the bishops in the council and insisted on saying one nature, so the council judged him to be a heretic and cut him off from every priestly rank, from communion, and from the leadership of the monastery. Among the bishops sitting were four Antiochians: Basilius Silfkiya, Saba, a “town” at the mouth of the Sin River between Baniyas and Jableh, Proclus Adhar, and Thefrantios Halban, east of Hama. Eutykha did not submit and confirmed that he would submit his matter to the councils of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessaloniki.

Laon and Utykha: Eutyches wrote to Leo, Bishop of Rome, Peter, Bishop of Rabina, and other important figures, hoping to do justice to him. So Leo wrote to the emperor stating that Flavianus had not written to him about what had happened, and that based on what Eutyches himself reported, he did not see what he could use to decide on the matter.

Voyeurism in Ephesus: Since this Eutyches was a follower of the Alexandrian party and a defender of the doctrine of one nature - as he understood it - it was necessary for him to resort to its leader, who was Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. The latter, upon the recommendation of Chrysavius the eunuch, convened a local council, dissolved the sects of the pieces, and considered him archimandrite over his monastery. Then he asked the Tsar to call for an Ecumenical Council to consider the case of Eutyches - thus contradicting the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council. With the intervention of Chrysavius, Eudocia, the emperor's wife, and other courtiers, the emperor prevailed against Eutyches and wrote to Leo, Bishop of Rome, hinting that the case of Eutyches should be examined before an ecumenical council. So Leo wrote to Flabianos with the Emperor’s concern for truth and justice and inquired from him about what had happened. So Flabianos sent the acts of the Council of Constantinople, which ruled against Eutyches. Leo held a local assembly and examined these actions, and approved them. He wrote to the emperor apologizing for not attending the council in person and stating that Julius, Bishop of Pozoula, would head the Roman delegation to the council, and that Julian, Bishop of Kush, had the right to represent him as well.

The Emperor called for a council in Ephesus to begin its work on the first of August in the year 449. The Emperor stressed that Theodoritus - the arch enemy of those who believe in one nature of Christ - may not participate in this council unless the assembled bishops request this. He ordered that the monks and hermits in the East be represented by Archimandrite Barsoum - an enemy of Theodoritus and close to Alexandria - and the Emperor obliged Elpitheus and Avulgios, among the men of the assembly, to represent him in the council. Flabianos and all members of the local Council of Constantinople were prevented from voting in this council. It was also announced in advance that the presidency of this council would be held by Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, and he would be assisted by Jubelianus, Bishop of Jerusalem - who sought the independence of Jerusalem from Antioch and who was partisan with Alexandria in pursuit of this goal - and Tritheus, Bishop of Caesarea.

The Church of Antioch was represented at this council by Domnos, its head, and twenty-one bishops, including Meletius Shaesar, Photius of Tyre, Theodores of Damascus, Efstathios of Beirut, Stephen of Ain Zerba, Theodores of Tarsus, Rufinus of Samisat, Simon Amed, and Polycarius of Jableh. And Theodoritus prevented it, as we mentioned above. Iba, Bishop of Edessa, was arrested in late June and was detained by the police for a period of time.

Tomos Lawn: The Roman delegation carried a number of letters, including one for the entire council, a second for the Emperor, others for the Empress, and a fourth for the monks of the capital. The most important of which is Tomos Leo, which is his letter to his colleague Flabbianus, Bishop of Constantinople. In it, he supported Flabian's position against Eutyches and explained the Church's teaching about the two natures in one hypostasis in a clear, precise explanation.

Thieves' complex: Dioscorus invited the delegations to meet in the Church of Our Lady in Ephesus on August 8, 449. One hundred and thirty bishops and more responded to the invitation. Dioscorus opened the works by reciting the emperor's orders. Upon completion of its recitation, the representative of Rome, Bishop Julius, asked him to read his superior’s letters. Dioscorus addressed it, but ordered it to be recited regarding the mission of Archimandrite Barsoum. Then he asked Eutyches to confess his faith. Eutyches affirmed that his faith was the faith of the fathers and the faith of Cyril, and he cursed all heresies, especially those that claimed the eternity of the body of Christ. Eutykha said about his faith in Christ: “I confess in Christ my nature before the union and one nature after the union.” As scholars see, his answer was diplomatic as he said: “I recognize two natures before the union, and I do not say two natures after the union.” He protested his cutting and asked for justice. Flabianos indicated that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorola, should be heard, but Albedius, the emperor’s representative, refused to do so. He was also not allowed to read letters from the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox and non-Orthodox fathers in this council believed that the council was convened with the intention of declaring the acquittal of Eutyches, as the members of the Council of Constantinople - which excommunicated Eutyches the heretic - were prevented from voting, and Dioscorus - who acquitted Eutyches the heretic - assumed the presidency of the council, the opposing party to Flabianos and his council. The straw that broke the camel's back was the failure to read Tomos Leo in the council.

Then he began to recite the works of the Council of Constantinople, which sentenced Eutyches to death. When the reader reached the phrase: “The international Eusebius exerted his effort to get Eutyches to acknowledge that there are two natures in Christ,” a large number of those present chanted: “Let Eusebius be burned alive and be cut down because he wanted to divide Christ.” Then Dioscorus put the issue of Eutyches to a vote, and he stated, with the integrity of his opinion, one hundred and fourteen bishops, the first of whom was Domnus, bishop of Antioch. Eutyches was recognized as an Orthodox and was restored to his position and leadership of his monastery.

After this, Dioscorus reminded the sitting members of the position of the Third Ecumenical Council on those who dare to violate the Nicene Constitution and asked for the condemnation of Flabianos and Eusebius on this basis. Flabianos protested, and the Roman deacon Hilarobus shouted in Latin, “Contradicitur.” Some bishops approached Dioscorus and asked him to be patient and patient, but the accumulated hatred and envy of the Second Ecumenical Council of Alexandria against Constantinople made him claim that they had threatened him. Dioscorus did not wait for the issue to be resolved through the usual research method and decided to use force, so he gathered an audience of The monks belonging to Eutyches and others were transported to the site of the complex, and he asked for help from the representatives of the emperor. They opened the doors of the church and brought in soldiers, monks, Egyptian sailors, and other members of the mob.

A great disturbance occurred, and the conciliar work that he had begun was torn apart, the fingers of the scribes were broken, and the Orthodox bishops were expelled after many beatings. As for those who remained, they were forcefully forced to sign on the blank pages of the Pragmatics. In vain, Flavianus tried to resort to the sanctity of the altar. The monks dragged him daringly, so he fell to the ground, and Dioscorus and the group of Barsoum trampled him. He was taken out, imprisoned, and died three days later on his way into exile. Dioscorus was accused of killing him. As for Eusebius, Bishop of Dorla, he was more fortunate and was able to escape and take refuge in Rome.

This council held its session on the twenty-second of August of the same year and considered the case of Iba, Bishop of Edessa. He listened to the actions of the Council of Antioch, the decision of the Beirut court, and the testimonies of the judge of Edessa, so he demoted him from his episcopal position and removed him from exercising priestly powers.

The council also considered the case of Daniel, Bishop of Harran, and deemed him unfit to be a priest. The council excommunicated Irenaeus, Bishop of Tire, and Clement, Bishop of Jbeil. This man was ordained a bishop by Irenaeus. The council asked Photius, the new bishop of Tyre, to ordain another bishop for Byblos. It was the turn of Sophronius, Bishop of Constantinople. He had been accused of witchcraft, divination, breaking the fast, and eating and fighting with a certain Jew. The council decided to transfer the file of Sophronius to the custody of the Metropolitan of Edessa.

Then I read some passages from the works of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. He accused them of Nestorianism, and Dioscorus ordered that these works be burned, and their owner removed from the episcopal seat and deported, even though he was not in the council, as he was not invited. Dioscorus drew Domnus's attention to these matters, and Domnus agreed to these suggestions and thus came out with the right faith. Hence, most likely, the Council of Chalcedon refrained from reconsidering his case. Theodoritus consulted the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of the West, but to no avail. He hoped to be allowed to return to his monastery near Apamia, and he was granted that.

Domnus had promised in advance that he would agree to all measures taken against the Nestorians. But this was not enough to ignore it. In the eyes of Dioscorus and his assistants, he was a friend of Flabian, Bishop of Constantinople, Theodoret, and protector of the Nestorians. He was sentenced to divorce. He returned to Palestine to the coast of Jericho and lived next to his great teacher, Efthymios. Flabianos was succeeded in the seat of Constantinople by Atatolius, the representative of Dioscorus in the capital. Domnus Maximus (449-455), an enemy of John of Antioch and a friend of Alexandria, was succeeded. Thus, Dioscorus satisfied his hatred and greed, even if it cost him a violation of the right faith. By making Christ one nature out of two.

Rome protests: Leo the Great was not satisfied with this eavesdropping - and he was the one who gave him this name - and he did not remain silent, so in the fall of the year 449 he wrote to the Emperor, the Empress, the clergy, and the people, objecting to what happened and requiring an ecumenical council to be held to reconsider, provided that it be a just council. But Theodosius did not care and did not answer. So the Roman bishop was freed again on Christmas Day. Then, at the beginning of the year 450, Valentinian III, his mother Placidia, and his wife Evdoxia arrived in Rome, so Leo begged them with tears to write to Theodosius. They wrote, but Theodosius replied that what had happened was sufficient and that there was no need to hold another council.

Policharia and Marcianus: Theodosius fell from his horse and died on the twenty-eighth of July in the year 450. He had no son, so his sister Policharia took over. Then she married her army commander, Marcianus, on the condition that she remain a virgin and that the marriage be limited to participating in the administration of the empire.

{People of one will are trying to distort Saint Polykharia by criticizing her marriage after she vowed herself to monasticism, and we say to them: Saint Polykharia got married, but her condition for marriage was that she live a life of virginity. This is what Dr. Asad Rustom confirms in “The Christological Dispute”... And we all know that Our Lady, the Mother of God, was before the people the wife of Saint Joseph, but she was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of the Word in the flesh... (The Network)}

Marcian was a resolute man who enjoyed the support of the army, so New Rome found a suitable ruler for him. Marcian announced the end of injustice and chaos by executing Chrysavius the eunuch and deporting his advisor Eutyches. The oppressed bishops sought him and the Bishop of Rome as well. He returned the exiles and Leo agreed to call for a new ecumenical council to consider the matter of Eutyches and repair what Dioscorius had destroyed. But he did not accept that this council meet on Italian soil, as Leo had desired.

Fourth Ecumenical Council - The Great Council of Chalcedon

On the seventeenth of May, 451, the court of Marcianus issued a call for a fourth ecumenical council to be opened on the first day of September. Five hundred bishops responded to this invitation and met in Constantinople to proceed from there to Nicaea at the appointed time. Military circumstances meant that Marcianos was late in attending, so the council was postponed for a short period. Dioscorus took advantage of this opportunity to subvert and sabotage, and he strove diligently to depose Leo, Bishop of Rome. But it did not find deaf ears outside the circles of Egyptian bishops. At this same time, Maximus was recognized as Bishop of Antioch.

Then Marcianus wanted the council sessions to be held in Chalidonion because of its proximity to the capital. He ordered the monks to be removed from it to ensure peace and serenity, so they departed. The Fourth Ecumenical Council began its work on October 8, 451 in Chalcedon.

Antiochian delegation: The Antiochian delegation consisted of one hundred and thirty bishops, as follows:

1. The first bishops of Syria: Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, Maras, Bishop of Khanasir (south-east of Aleppo, sixty kilometers away from it), Theoktistus, Bishop of Aleppo, Romulus, Bishop of Qinnasrin, Policarius, Bishop of Jableh, Peter, Bishop of Jaboul, Macarius, Bishop of Latakia, Saba, Bishop of the town, and Gerontius, Bishop of Silfakiyya.
2. Bishops of Syria II: Domnus, Bishop of Apamia, Mark, Bishop of Rastan, Tethymotheus, Bishop of Banias, Eutychianus, Bishop of Hama, Meletius, Bishop of Shaizar, Paul, Bishop of Maryamin to the east of Mshatta, Limbatheus, Bishop of Rehniah, and Ephesabius, Bishop of Jisr Shughur.
3. Assyrian bishops: They are twenty-two, the first of whom is Basil, Bishop of Saflakiyya, followed by Jacob, Bishop of Animorion, and Acacius, Bishop of Antioch.
4. Bishops of Cilicia I: Theodoros, Bishop of Tarsus, Philip, Bishop of Aden, Theodoros, Bishop of Augustus, and five others.
5. Bishops of Cilicia II: Kyros, Bishop of Ain Zerba, Julian, Bishop of Alexandria, Bassian, Bishop of Mopsosti, Julian, Bishop of Arsuz, and five others.
6. Bishops of the Euphrates: Stephen of Manbij, Qazma Cyrus, Timothy, Bishop of Dolek, David, Bishop of Jarabulus, John, Bishop of Marash, Petricius, Bishop of Siffin, Maras, Bishop of Rum Qalaa, Athanasius, Bishop of Beren, Manianus, Bishop of Rusafa, Rufinus, Bishop of Smisat, Oratius, Bishop of Syria and its wall on the Euphrates, and Euphulgios, Bishop of Belqis.
7. Bishops of Edessa: Nonnus, bishop of Edessa, Daniel, bishop of Pyrrha, Damianus, bishop of Raqqa, Ibrahim, bishop of Kerasium, perhaps a Cyrxian at the mouth of the Khabur in the Euphrates, Sophronius, bishop of Constantine, John, bishop of Harran, Qayuma, bishop of Markopolis, whose location is unknown, and John, bishop of the Arabs.
8. Bishops of Mesopotamia: Simeon, bishop of Amed, Maras, bishop of Gaza (the location of which is unknown), Qayyuma, bishop of Angel, Noah, bishop of Kefa, Zabanos, bishop of Mayafarqin, and Ephesabius, bishop of Suphanah.
9. Arab bishops: Constantine, Bishop of Busra, Proclus, Bishop of Daraa, Malek, Bishop of Masmiya, Theodosius, Bishop of Qanat, Selim, Bishop of Constantine Al-Laja, Maras, Bishop of Suwayda, John, Bishop of Al-Sanamayn, Zeus, Bishop of Hesban, Anastasius, Bishop of Harran, Plancus, Bishop of Jerash, Giannos, Bishop of Madaba, Severus, Bishop of Nawa, Gothos, Bishop of Mishnaf, Euphlogius, Bishop of Amman, Hormidas, Bishop of Shehba, and Nonos, Bishop of Adhar .
10. Bishops of First and Coastal Phenicia: Photius, Bishop of Tyre, Alexandros, Bishop of Tartous, Paul, Bishop of Arwad, Heraclitus, Bishop of Arqa, Efstathius, Bishop of Beirut, Euphyrius, Bishop of Batroun, Peter, Bishop of Byblos, Phosphorus, Bishop of Artuz, Olympus, Bishop of Banias, Thomas, Bishop of the Prophet Younes, Porphyreon, Paul, Bishop of Akka, Damian, Bishop of Sidon, and Theodorus, Bishop of Tripoli.
11. Bishops of Phenicia II and Lebanon: Theodore, Bishop of Damascus, Yrdanos, Bishop of Wadi Barada Market, Ibrahim, Bishop of Harlana in Ghouta, Thadas, Bishop of Qara and Kanaker, Peter, Bishop of Giroud, Theodoros, Bishop of Mahin, Oranius, Bishop of Homs, Thomas, Bishop of Hawarin, Joseph, Bishop of Baalbek, Ephesian, Bishop of Yabroud, Valerius, Bishop of Qatiya, John, Bishop of Palmyra, and Efstathios, Bishop of the Arabs.

Other delegations: The Roman delegation consisted of Bishops Baskasinus and Lucentius, Bishops Bonifatius and Basil, and Julian, Bishop of the Island of Kos, joined them for the second time. Dioscorus came, followed by seventeen bishops. The bishops of Asia, Thrace, Greece, Illyria, and Africa joined these. The Roman state was represented by Anatolius, the great commander, Platius Praefectus of the East, Tatianus Praefectus of the capital, and fifteen officials.

First session: The work of the Council was opened on the eighth of October in the Church of Saint Euphemia in Chalcedon in the presence of this large number of bishops (the number of fathers in this Council reached 600) and the presence of a number of state notables at the front of the Council in front of the Royal Door, and to their left were the deputies of ancient Rome and Anatolius, Bishop of New Rome. Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, and to their right, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, Eupinalius, Bishop of Jerusalem, then the rest of the bishops from both sides.

After the opening, Pascasinos stood up in the middle of the complex and said to the leaders of the state: “The most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of the Romans, the head of all the churches, has ordered us to address you so that Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria, will not sit with us. Either he gets out or we get out.” The representatives of the authority decided that Dioscorius should sit in the middle of the council, so he sat. Then Eusebius, Bishop of Dorla, stood up and presented a book containing a summary of the voyeurism that took place in Ephesus. After that, the works of the Thieves Council were read, and then the works of the Council of Constantinople before it. After receiving strong responses, the representatives of the authority proposed cutting off Dioscorus of Alexandria, Eubinalius of Jerusalem, Trivius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ankara, Ephesianus of Beirut, and Basilius of Selfakia, as they were the leaders of voyeurism in Ephesus. Then the session rose, and the fathers came out chanting: “Holy God, holy, powerful, holy, who does not die, have mercy on us.” This is the first time the Trisagians are mentioned in the history of the church. They then chanted, “May the Emperor have many years!” Christ overthrew the murderer Dioscorus! Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us".

Second session: The fathers returned to work on October 10, and Dioscorus, Eupenalius, and the rest of those accused of voyeurism in Ephesus remained outside the council. The representatives of the authority asked the gathered fathers to consider the matter of faith and agree on a formula that would become the one to rely on. The Fathers stated that the Third Ecumenical Council forbade any amendment to the Nicene Creed. But due to the insistence of the authority, the fathers listened to the texts of Cyril’s letters to Nestorius and John, and to the “Tomos”, Leo’s letter to Flabianos, the martyr. Most of the fathers chanted: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. We all believe like this. The Orthodox believe this. He who does not believe like this is deprived. Peter preached this teaching through Leo. Cyril knew this. He who does not believe like this is deprived. The bishops of Palestine hesitated and asked for an explanation of the tomos, but the bishops of Egypt did not take a specific position due to the absence of the head of their delegation, Dioscorus. Before the session was dismissed, some Illyrians cheered for the accused bishops.

Third session: The council met in its third session on the thirteenth of October, in a church adjacent to the Church of Saint Efimia, which contains the remains of some martyrs. Representatives of authority were absent. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorola, got up and read a new memorandum explaining the mistakes and sins of Dioscorus. Then he was followed by four Alexandrian seminarians who criticized Dioscorus in terms of his position on the family of his predecessor Cyril, his cruelty and injustice, and in terms of his greed for money and his greed in collecting it. So the council summoned Dioscorus three times, but he did not attend. So Pascasinos, the head of the council, said: Dioscorus was invited three times, but he did not attend. What does this person who disdains the council deserve? The council said: He deserves the punishment of the disobedient. Then Lucian, Bishop of Pisa and Deputy Bishop of Heraclius, said: The previous Ecumenical Council took action against Nestorius, so let us look at its measures and act accordingly. Baskasinos said: Do you order us to apply church punishments against him? The council said: “We agree on what is good.” Bishop Julian addressed the delegation from Rome and asked its leader, Baskasinus, to clarify the punishment specified in the laws. Baskasinos said: I repeat, what do you approve of? Maximus, Bishop of Antioch the Great, said: “Whatever your righteousness approves of, we approve of.” Pascasinos proposed cutting Dioscorus because he acquitted Eutyches and accepted him into fellowship before the Ephesus meeting, because he did not allow Leo’s letter to be read to the council, and because he insisted on severing the relationship with the Orthodox. Anatolius, Bishop of New Rome, said: I believe in everything, like the Holy See, and I agree with the amputation of Dioscorus. Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, said: I place Dioscorus under the ecclesiastical punishment pronounced by Leo, Bishop of Old Rome, and Anatolius, Bishop of New Rome. Many others agreed, so Dioscorus was sentenced to death. As for the remaining bishops who were accused, they expressed remorse and received forgiveness.

Fourth and fifth session: In the fourth and fifth sessions, the fathers discussed the matter of faith. They looked at Tomos Leo in the light of the Constitution of Faith that was enacted in the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and in the light of Saint Cyril’s definitions as stated in the works of the Third Ecumenical Council.

Thirteen Egyptian bishops presented a list of faith that proved their attachment to the faith of the fathers from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the days of Cyril. They denounced Arius, Phatumius, Mani, and Nestorius, but they remained silent about Eutyches. The council rebuked them and said that they were working in accordance with the Sixth Nicene Law, as it was not permissible for them to express an opinion without the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria.

Barsoum tried to defend Dioscorius, but he did not succeed. He had barely appeared before the gathered fathers when voices rose that he must leave. Some said: “Out, murderer, to the stage, to the ferocious beasts.” Barsoum and the monastic delegation who were accompanying him left.

It was written to represent all the opinions of the council, to be considered an image of a confession that decides on the issue of one nature raised by Eutyches. This committee carried out the task entrusted to it well and submitted to the council at its fifth session a draft recognition, the text of which is as follows:

We all teach one teaching, following the holy fathers. We acknowledge the son of one is the same Lord Jesus Christ. He himself is perfect according to divinity, and he himself is perfect according to humanity. True God and true man. He himself is of one soul and one body. Equal to the Father in the essence of Godhead. He himself is equal to us in the essence of humanity, similar to us in everything except sin. Born of the Father before the ages according to the divinity. He himself, in the last days, was born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to humanity, for our sake and for our salvation. He is known to be the Messiah, the Son, the Lord, and one and the same in two natures without mixing, change, division, or separation, without the difference of natures being negated by the union. Rather, the property of each of the two natures is still preserved. They both constitute one person and one hypostasis, not divided or divided into two persons, but rather He is the Son. And there is only one God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets prophesied about Him from the beginning, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as He handed us the Constitution of the Fathers.

Sixth session: At this session, on the twenty-fifth of October, the Emperor attended in person and addressed the fathers, urging them to be sound and peaceful. The council was then determined, and the fathers approved it and the emperor ratified it.

Tire and Beirut: In the fourth session, the Fathers considered the invitation brought by Photius, Bishop of Tire, to Ephestathius, Bishop of Beirut. The summary of this invitation is that Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, bestowed upon Efstathios Bishop of Beirut on the occasion of his elevation to the rank of Metropolitan presiding over the bishoprics of Byblos, Batroun, Tripoli, Artuz, Akkar, and Tartous, after all of these were subject to the Metropolitan of Tyre. The Council blamed Anatolius for this transgression and ruled that these bishoprics be returned to the Metropolitan of Tyre.

Theodoritus and Ebba: In the eighth session, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, pronounced for the first time cutting off Nestorius: “And whoever does not call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God makes two of the only Son.” Sophronius, Bishop of Constantine of Edessa, and John, Bishop of Marash, followed suit. The council recognized all of these as Orthodox. In the tenth session, Iba was acquitted.

Jerusalem Church: The holy fathers gathered in Nicaea in the First Ecumenical Council granted the Bishop of Jerusalem certain privileges that we are not aware of, and at the same time they preserved the rights of the Metropolitan of the Diocese and the Bishop of Caesarea. Since he assumed the throne of patronage, Eupinalius had begun to exercise much broader powers than what custom and tradition allowed. He looked forward to exercising authority in Arabia and Phenicia, so the bishops in these two dioceses followed suit. He falsified documents, most notably in Ephesus, to prove a truth that no one knew about. Cyril intercepted his path and his situation was revealed, so he remained silent and waited for a favorable opportunity. When the weather turned dark and the fathers gathered to consider the matter of Eutykha, he returned to his previous request. In the seventh session of the Chalcedonian Council, held on the twenty-sixth of October in the year 451, the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem reached an understanding, and Maximus recognized Eupinalius’s authority over the major cities of Besan, Caesarea, and Petra. Eupinalius refrained from claiming any authority in Phoenicia and Arabia.

Bishop of New Rome: In the eleventh to fourteenth sessions, issues relating to the bishops of Asia were resolved. At the fifteenth session, the Council enacted thirty laws that are still in effect. The ninth law states that if a dispute occurs between a clergyman and the metropolitan of the diocese, it shall be referred to the exarch of the state and to the person sitting on the throne of Constantinople. This came in the seventeenth law. Canon Twenty-Eight stipulated equality in dignity between the bishops of New Rome and Old Rome. The Roman delegation objected to this equality.

Completion of works: The Emperor ratified these decisions and laws and dissolved the Fourth Ecumenical Council. He prevented Eutykha's followers from holding religious parties. Eutyches was purified and died shortly thereafter. Dioscorus was also exiled and put under house arrest in the Aphlagonian temple.

Comment taken from my parish bulletin: The Fourth Ecumenical Council clarified the straight doctrine by using the phrase “the two natures” in Christ. However, the Eastern Churches did not all agree on this definition, as some of them (the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian) rejected it, and saw in the phrase a return to Nestorianism. However, there are many positive opinions today among the ranks of those who reject the Council of Chalcedon, which see that the differences over the Council are verbal, and call for its acceptance by understanding its decisions as a reaffirmation of the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council.